Let’s call this phenomenon–which is now widespread across the advocacy media–“the scandal of the unasked question.” And it is applied not only in the presidential campaign but ubiquitously across the wide swath of matters we discuss here at SHS, such as assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, food and fluids cases, anti-human environmental extremism, etc, in which media have clearly picked good guys and bad guys.
A banned book which details how to die peacefully will be launched online by Australian voluntary euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke. Dr Nitschke describes the Peaceful Pill eHandbook as a compilation of the “most reliable and peaceful methods” used to end life. “We’ve gone through the ones that are used and we’ve looked at the best,” he told AAP
Doesn’t that beg an obvious question: How does he know? Has he tested these so-called peaceful methods? If so, how? On people? On animals? Inquiring minds want to know.
Except that the media only exhibit inquiring minds in certain directions and against certain personalities, e.g. “Is Sarah Palin really the mother of Trig?” Stories that could call their favored issues into question, such as the compasssssion of assisted suicide just don’t rank that kind of pointed inquiry.
As I see it, on a wide swath of important societal issues and political campaigns, the media know what they don’t want to know. And that is what gives rise to the scandal of the unasked question.